- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:49 am to Willie Stroker
The fact that they try to blame it on HER hard drive crashing is the most laughable part. Emails aren't stored on an individual's hard drive like files.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 10:06 am
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:55 am to Hat Tricks
quote:
Emails aren't stores on an individual's hard drive like files.
It isn't the only place they can be stored, but it is A place
Posted on 6/25/14 at 9:57 am to GrammarKnotsi
the only way any emails would be on the hard drive was if it was using cached exchange mode. but all the shite would still be on the exchange server.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 10:06 am to gmrkr5
quote:
the only way any emails would be on the hard drive was if it was using cached exchange mode
You don't think they would ? I understand that these are just copies, but the statement was that emails are not contained on a HD..
Posted on 6/25/14 at 10:09 am to GrammarKnotsi
quote:
It isn't the only place they can be stored, but it is A place
I guess there could be something like a pst file but the emails would have still been on a server and not just limited to a specific hard drive.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 10:10 am
Posted on 6/25/14 at 10:13 am to GrammarKnotsi
quote:
You don't think they would ? I understand that these are just copies, but the statement was that emails are not contained on a HD..
copies of emails can absolutely be stored on a hard drive. but there is no way to configure exchange to ONLY store emails on hard drive and not in the exchange sql databases(s). they are simply copies so that the user can work with past emails if they are offline for some reason
Posted on 6/25/14 at 10:24 am to gmrkr5
quote:
they are simply copies so that the user can work with past emails if they are offline for some reason
Or I guess if an individual has a mailbox size limit on the server they will backup some emails to pst to free up some mailbox space but there should still have been a backup somewhere of what's on the server, no?
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 10:34 am
Posted on 6/25/14 at 10:33 am to Hat Tricks
quote:
there should still have been a backup somewhere of what's on the server, no?
absolutely. the exchange database is always the primary storage location.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 10:34 am
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:30 pm to gmrkr5
I've been following this fairly closely and here's what I have been able to put together...
1. They use Exchange and have the users' server-side mail files set to send out a warning when the user reaches 500MB (I think that's the default within Exchange).
2. Users that reach the 500MB limit are instructed to move old emails to the locally-hosted archive.pst
3. If the default mailbox is on the server and mail is being archived to archive.pst, there's little reason to use an ost file (cached mode) and is most likely turned off.
4. The IRS spends the brunt of their budget on warehousing tax return information, not employee files/email.
5. Their server-side email archiving lasts only about 6 months as the brunt of mandating email retention is still focused on users printing out work-related emails and warehousing them in their own filing cabinets.
6. The hard-copy rule is basically left up to user discretion.
This is strictly for the IRS, I haven't seen information on email retention policy from the WH nor the DoJ yet.
1. They use Exchange and have the users' server-side mail files set to send out a warning when the user reaches 500MB (I think that's the default within Exchange).
2. Users that reach the 500MB limit are instructed to move old emails to the locally-hosted archive.pst
3. If the default mailbox is on the server and mail is being archived to archive.pst, there's little reason to use an ost file (cached mode) and is most likely turned off.
4. The IRS spends the brunt of their budget on warehousing tax return information, not employee files/email.
5. Their server-side email archiving lasts only about 6 months as the brunt of mandating email retention is still focused on users printing out work-related emails and warehousing them in their own filing cabinets.
6. The hard-copy rule is basically left up to user discretion.
This is strictly for the IRS, I haven't seen information on email retention policy from the WH nor the DoJ yet.
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 6/25/14 at 12:34 pm to Bard
quote:
The hard-copy rule is basically left up to user discretion.
laughable policy considering the regulations they passed for Part 11
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:17 pm to CAD703X
yea if that is true, that is amazing considering the regulations the Fed imposes on other industries when it comes to info security and records retention
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:28 pm to CAD703X
quote:
laughable policy considering the regulations they passed for Part 11
Everything about it has been laughable, in a tragic sort of way. How does an agency that gets ~$2B per year IT budget not have a long-term archival solution? What the hell is their DR like? Who is responsible for this shitty state of affairs?
The hearing Monday revealed that thus far for the year the IRS has had ~2,000 hard drives crash on user machines thus far this year. From my own experience (our network has 600-700 computers) I would expect that number to be muuuuuuuch lower (more like 400 for the ENTIRE year).
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:32 pm to gmrkr5
quote:
yea if that is true, that is amazing considering the regulations the Fed imposes on other industries when it comes to info security and records retention
The federal government has never been above saying "do as I say, not as I do".
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:36 pm to Willie Stroker
Even if the hard drives did fail, the information could still be recovered. Hell, they can recover info off of hard drives that have burned.
Only way recovery would not be possible is if the hard drives were smashed into tiny bits and scattered.
Only way recovery would not be possible is if the hard drives were smashed into tiny bits and scattered.
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:40 pm to colorchangintiger
quote:
Only way recovery would not be possible is if the hard drives were smashed into tiny bits and scattered.
i wouldn't say that. i can make data on a hard drive completely unrecoverable without removing a single platter
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:41 pm to Bard
quote:
2,000 hard drives crash on user machines thus far this year.
who are they buying hard drives from, Nabisco???
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:43 pm to gmrkr5
quote:
i wouldn't say that. i can make data on a hard drive completely unrecoverable without removing a single platter
by alternating writing all 1's and all 0's to the drive?
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:49 pm to gmrkr5
quote:
i can make data on a hard drive completely unrecoverable without removing a single platter
tell us more, snowden
Posted on 6/25/14 at 1:56 pm to colorchangintiger
quote:
by alternating writing all 1's and all 0's to the drive?
doesnt have to be all 1s and 0s but yes, you can render all data unrecoverable by many passes of overwrites. and yes i do realize what an electron microscope is and what it can do. you still arent recovering data from a magnetic drive if i overwrite it with 100 passes of hex
This post was edited on 6/25/14 at 1:58 pm
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News